DVDActive uses cookies to remember your actions, such as your answer in the poll. Cookies are
also used by third-parties for statistics, social media and advertising. By using this website, it is
assumed that you agree to this.

Factotum (US - DVD R1)

Gabe Powers is bored to tears after watching an hour and a half of nothing..

Feature

Fac•to•tum [fak-toh-tuhm] –noun 1. A person, as a handyman or servant, employed to do all kinds of work around the house. 2. Any employee or official having many different responsibilities.

In this adaptation of the work of famed author Charles Bukowski, Matt Dillon stars as Hank Chinaski, the fictional alter-ego of Bukowski, who wanders around Los Angeles trying to live off odd jobs which don't interfere with his primary interest, which is writing. Basically he drinks and loses each job due to his drinking. His long time on and off girlfriend, Jan (Lili Taylor), offers little concession, and Hank wanders aimlessly through life.

The film Factotum is a cautionary tale. It cautions against the dangers of alcohol abuse. If you become an alcoholic, according to this film, you don't run the risk of beating your wife and children, but becoming a most boring and stereotyped person. The film also warns of the possibility of aimlessness. A lot. Over and over again the audience is shown the horrors of remaining idle, the terrors of mediocrity. Over and over. For 94 minutes we are cautioned. There are some heavy-handed jokes thrown in to keep us from screaming, but it's mostly about the cautioning.

I know next to nothing about author Charles Bukowski. I've never read any of his books or short stories, I've never gotten around to seeing Barfly, but if this film is any indication then I don't care to remedy myself of this ignorance. If I am to believe this fictional representation of Bukowski is a valid representation of the real life man, he's a self-pitying, self-important brat that only writes in the most trite and clichéd prose. Self loathing can make for a good read and good entertainment (just look at the work of Hunter S. Thompson), sometimes even great art, but here it's simply dull. I only hope that this is the failure of the film, and not its author, because I'd hate to judge to harshly that which I do not understand.

After finishing Factotum I scoured my DVD shelves to find a film more directionless and uneventful that I personally enjoyed. The closest I could come was the work of Jim Jarmusch, who tends to make movies about silence and everyday man's contemplation. The difference between Jarmusch's work (even his worst work) and what Factotum's Norwegian director Bent Hamer has achieved here is in the content. More specifically the fact that Jarmusch tends to actually have content, and though meandering, a final goal to his pictures. Jarmusch's characters are quirky enough to maintain even a basic interest during silent moments. Hamer and Bukowski characters are just uninvolving, depressing, and speak like 12 year old poets thinking aloud. Jarmusch also manages to come across as genuine, whereas Factotum is conceitedly preachy.

I'm pretty sure that Bukowski was an influence on Jarmusch, as both seem to belong to the post-beat, early punk art movements. I say pretty sure because I'm basing this on the little I know about Bukowski and his fans. I'm hoping that this was just a particularly poorly adapted representation of Bukowski, because the last thing I need is his fans drunkenly coming down on me. Well represented or not, Factotum is a lethargic mess masquerading as an 'important' indie flick.

The film is almost a parody, and scenes play out like Saturday Night Live skits making fun of the clichés of modern indie film. In one such scene Hank wakes up, runs to the bathroom and vomits, then returns to the bedroom and begins drinking. After a bit of nothing happening, Jan (the fact that Lili Taylor is basically the indie queen to end them all really helps this agenda, she could easily be the SNL guest host the week this hypothetical skit aired) follows suit, but decides to light up a cigarette, rather than taking a booze hit after relieving her stomach of its contents. After a few more minutes of nothingness, the two speak to each other like melodramatic tweens misquoting Shakespeare, and Hank leaves in what's suppose to be a tragic circumstance.

All the while the camera does not move. I could almost hear the director shouting from the rear channels, "Look, they wake up sick and go right back to their vices! They're trapped in their addictions and don't know how to communicate! It's funny and tragic! New York street cred now, please!".

A lot of people (read: critics) are raving about Dillon's performance, saying it's the best (sometimes only) reason to see the film. I'm really not all that impressed. Playing a dejected drunk who's mad at the world for not appreciating his genius just doesn’t strike me as all that hard. Dillon pulls this character off, to be sure, but his supporting cast seemed just as good. I give the most credit to Marissa Tomei as one of Hank's flings, but I've seen better out of her as well. I'm guessing the director's acting notes consisted of demanding nobody got a good night's sleep before filming.

Factotum was filmed in Minneapolis, Minnesota (not even close to looking like L.A., where the film supposedly takes place), whereby I live, so I was able to maintain a basic interest while looking for recognizable landmarks, but had I rented the film for personal viewing rather than watching it for a review I wouldn't have finished it. It was an endurance test from beginning to end, and the last 10 minutes were a massive insult to intellectual filmgoers the world over. The whole thing turns into a sort of ironic Disney inspirational film. The life lesson, in case you missed it throughout the rest of the film's 84 minutes, is: don't be a drunken lay about or life will pass you by. It's this kind of vapid banality that made me hate this film.

Video

There isn't much in the way of visual splendour in Factotum. Most of the film is filmed in real-life settings rather than movie-made sets, so there is a dullness to the compositions. This is purposeful, and works in the context of the film, but it doesn’t make for a spectacular DVD transfer. There is quite a bit of film grain, but details are sharp without too much edge enhancement. I only noticed a few compression issues like low-level noise and digital blocking. Colours are well represented, but unfortunately dull. A very average transfer.

Audio

Excuse me, could you speak up? I still can't hear you. Everyone practically whispers their way through the film, and even at high volume levels it's hard to discern dialogue. The soundtrack is solid, with really deep and clean bass, but the rest of the film depends mostly on on-set audio, and is not aggressive or impressive. There is a cool effect in the sequences taking place within Hank's crummy apartment, where the neighbouring apartments' noises are recreated. Anyone who's lived in a building with thin walls will recognize the sound of muffled music and arguments. Like the video, overall a very average audio mix.

Extras

I'm torn here because I really didn't want to sit through any more of Factotum than I had to, but I really do want to learn more about Bukowski. The 30-minute making-of featurette concerns itself with director Hamer, and the film's production over the story's author. The featurette is a slyly disguised ad for the film, as is the norm with these things, but surprisingly not an English language ad. There's a bit to learn here, but not much. The only other features are a trailer and an ad for the CD soundtrack. Pretty weak. I suppose I'll have to rent Barfly and Live Through This someday.

Overall

I can't recommend this flick to anyone with the possible exception of die hard Bukowski fans. I've been told there are quite a few Easter Eggs thrown in for regular readers to enjoy. From my Bukowski ignorant point of view Factotum is an aggressively dull pile of nothing. And this is coming from a guy who gave Battle in Heaven, a real aimless film, a passing grade. The DVD has little in the way of extras, and the A/V quality is nothing impressive. For those not planning on watching the film, I'll reinstall the moral on behalf of the filmmakers: don't be aimless or your life will have no aim. Or something.

Advertisements

Comments

1st January 2007 6:51#1

I totally disagree with your assessment of the film. Having not read any Bukowski, I still feel that you misrepresent the film's intent and what it portrays. It's not a cautionary tale at all. It's not trying to moralize at all. It certainly deals with mediocrity and one man's trials as he ekes out a dismal existence but that's not any reason to claim that it's saying "Look at this schmuck who never compromised. Don't be like him because this is what it gets you." It's very hard for me to attention a definitive interpretation to the film because much of autobiographical, slice-of-life art is very hard to neatly label and that's part of why I like it so much. It wasn't an amazing movie but it was a good one, I thought. Dillon I thought did a pretty good job.

1st January 2007 7:19#2

the official synopsis said LA. I hope it was wrong. I think it's very much, and very heavy handedly a morality tale. I think the character constantly compromised, unless his goal was to be a jerk, then I suppose he didn't compromise. Beyond my posible misreading of the story's intent, it was still very poorly made and brutally boring. I assumed I'd like it based on its actors, plot and word of mouth, but I actually felt angry by the end credits. Like everything else I review it comes down to personal taste, but even taking other taste into account I think the filmmakers have failed.

Also, I was being a bit tongue in cheek about the whole "drinking is bad thing", I'm pretty sure that the filmmakers didn't intend the characters to be boring but tragic.

1st January 2007 22:59#3

I don't think they're supposed to be tragic. It's just a slice of life. It's not supposed to be pitiable or reprehensible. It's really not a morality tale. Bukowski isn't about self-flaggelation (from the discussion I've had with friends of mine and just from watching the film) and beating you to death with "Drinking bad! Getting job great!"

Hamer isn't trying to shove in your face a black and white world where someone who doesn't conform to those norms is both pitiable and tragic. I think it just attempts to depict Bukowski's life without trying to judge him. I think Hamer doesn't make the moral assumptions that you accuse him of.

2nd January 2007 2:07#4

Oh, don't worry about pushing, so long as we aren't name calling, this is what the forum is for. The thing that put me off entirely to this film was the end because it seemed to suddenly throw everything in a very moralistic light. The first hour and 20 minutes were just boring, it was the end that ultimately made me decide the film was 'bad'.

4th January 2007 9:28#9

On the contrary, Factotum is marvellously rich in subtle humour, not dick & fart jokes that you're probably used to. I suggest you read one of Bukowski's novels (short chapters, ideal!) or even one of his 20 word poems to gain some sort of an insight into one of the most fascinating authors in 'beat' literature.

Another thing, ending your review with "or something" makes me think you're still in that Beavis & Butthead era. Maybe you need to wait intol your old enough to be able to buy the works of Bukowski.

4th January 2007 23:14#10

The day I take advice on the maturity of my personal humor tastes from someone calling himself "Chaos Engine" is the day I die. Crawl out of your ass long enough to think about what I wrote, or maybe check out a few more of my reviews, like the ones I wrote for White Chicks or Scary Movie 4. Perhaps you could take a look at my DVD collection to get an idea of my personal taste in humor. Maybe you didn't read the whole review, I'm not sure, but I found nothing subtle about Factotum's humor. I was hit over the head with it for 90 boring minutes. Either learn to appriciate opinions that may differ from your own or quit reading critiques of things you like. Insulting someone you don't know through the anominity of the internet doesn't exactly strike me as particularly mature.

25th November 2011 20:02#11

Since Barfly came first I am going to say that it was sad that they had to steal a scene from Barfly. I speak of the introduction of Tomie's character; From spending his last dollars on a drink for her through her having access to a rich friends charge account at the liquor store it was a direct steal of Barfly. Was this done by an alcohol addled writer or the director trying getting the new character moving through the story?

Quick Reply

Message

Enter the message here then press submit. The username, password and message are required. Please make the message constructive, you are fully responsible for the legality of anything you contribute. Terms & conditions apply.